LETTER: Limiting rights serves no 'greater purpose'

I was aghast to read this comment on the crosses by the editor "But there will be no question of legality, and the greater purpose will be served."

What possible greater purpose has been served by forcing this religious expression onto private property? While this issue should be passionately debated, it is a matter of constitutionality not legality. No ordnance was violated, and no penalty was passed.

The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

If the right to assemble was ruled to be limited to private property only, would the "greater purpose" have been served? If the freedom of the press was limited by its size and scope would there be an editorial claiming that the greater purpose had been served? This ruling erodes the Constitutional protection of religion expression.

Some will claim that religious expression being allowed on public property is protection enough and that these churches should appreciate that allowance, but that is not what the Constitution protects.

As the protection of religious expression dissolves, what will prevent the freedom of the press or the right to assemble from dissolving when they become unpopular? It is disconcerting that the editor and an agent of this newspaper who brought this suit not only seem oblivious as to how this erosion affects the freedoms for which they are passionate, but some of the editor's opinion is based on false assumptions rather than introspective consideration and substantiate facts.

The idea that the churches would have sued if denied was lifted wholly from comments on the forums. Any good legal representative will consider the possible implications of a decision.

That, however, is not indicative of the intentions of these churches. The incivility of the comments on the forums mostly remain.

I hope we can all remember that we share this city and that those with influence will use their positions to promote healing and understanding. I do not see how claiming that a greater purpose has been served shows understanding or accomplishes that healing.